Why does TCEC use unbalanced opening?

[Graham Banks]

I'd like to see TCEC return to using balanced openings, with perhaps a 6 moves per side limit.

And 96 draws out of 100.

Do you want the best quality chess, or just artificial entertainment?

[Laskos]

I'd like to see TCEC return to using balanced openings, with perhaps a 6 moves per side limit.

And 96 draws out of 100.

Do you want the best quality chess, or just artificial entertainment?

Best quality chess is agreeing to a draw right after starting the clock (both 32 men tbs). And frankly, I can hardly follow the games of 2600 GMs without a help, I am to "profoundly admire" a 4000 Elo level 96% drawfest? Risible endeavor to me.

[hgm]

I guess people want the best quality chess that is reasonably entertaining from the participating engines. Starting from an unbalanced position is an effective way to make the best-quality chess that follows more entertaining. Starting from a position where nothing is at stake, because either side can afford a large number of errors without impacting the result, is pretty boring. What does it matter whether the imbalanced position was reached through an optimal sequence of moves, or not? The participants were not responsible for it.

People are willing to pay for watching a tightrope man to walk from one end to another of a cable 20m above the ground in the circus. They won't be impressed at all when I cross a 100m deep canyon walking in the center of a 10m wide bridge. They might get interested if I start walking on the railing of that bridge, though.

[Graham Banks]

I'd like to see TCEC return to using balanced openings, with perhaps a 6 moves per side limit.

And 96 draws out of 100.

Do you want the best quality chess, or just artificial entertainment?

Best quality chess is agreeing to a draw right after starting the clock (both 32 men tbs). And frankly, I can hardly follow the games of 2600 GMs without a help, I am to "profoundly admire" a 4000 Elo level 96% drawfest? Risible endeavor to me.

You can still learn a lot from draws, and I doubt that they'd mainly be boring.
However, everybody to their own taste.

[chrisw]

I'd like to see TCEC return to using balanced openings, with perhaps a 6 moves per side limit.

And 96 draws out of 100.

Do you want the best quality chess, or just artificial entertainment?

Best quality chess is agreeing to a draw right after starting the clock (both 32 men tbs). And frankly, I can hardly follow the games of 2600 GMs without a help, I am to "profoundly admire" a 4000 Elo level 96% drawfest? Risible endeavor to me.

You can still learn a lot from draws, and I doubt that they'd mainly be boring.
However, everybody to their own taste.

Some draws can be more exciting that even the most Tal-like wins. The little miniature I posted a couple of weeks ago vs Rofscade was a classic in that mode, both sides with simultaneous attacks resolving with fireworks into highly unbalanced position, OTB very difficult to predict what was going on, or the eventual result. Draws like that are rare but not that rare.
Nevertheless, I partly agree with Laskos, preferring that one side can CREATE unbalance, an imbalance that is then fought over, is preferable to book authors generating the imbalance beforehand.

[hgm]

But what to do if the thing we prefer won't happen in practice? Most people prefer winning the lottery over having to work hard for poor pay...

The objection will always be that the strongest chess by definition will not create any imbalance.

[BrendanJNorman]

I'd like to see TCEC return to using balanced openings, with perhaps a 6 moves per side limit.

And 96 draws out of 100.

Do you want the best quality chess, or just artificial entertainment?

Best quality chess is agreeing to a draw right after starting the clock (both 32 men tbs). And frankly, I can hardly follow the games of 2600 GMs without a help, I am to "profoundly admire" a 4000 Elo level 96% drawfest? Risible endeavor to me.

You can still learn a lot from draws, and I doubt that they'd mainly be boring.
However, everybody to their own taste.

Some draws can be more exciting that even the most Tal-like wins. The little miniature I posted a couple of weeks ago vs Rofscade was a classic in that mode, both sides with simultaneous attacks resolving with fireworks into highly unbalanced position, OTB very difficult to predict what was going on, or the eventual result. Draws like that are rare but not that rare.
Nevertheless, I partly agree with Laskos, preferring that one side can CREATE unbalance, an imbalance that is then fought over, is preferable to book authors generating the imbalance beforehand.

I agree with Kai as well, but have my own thoughts about this "draw death" issue.

For me, the whole "quest for chess perfection" mentality is all well and good, but one also should make chess a sporting contest as well.

If the sport gets boring, make it more interesting.

The top computers (and even many old ones) already play blitz chess at the same level (or higher) as top GMS do now, so why not just shorten the time controls to rapid or even slow blitz (14+1 or something) ?

And keep shortening until either the draw death ends, or you reach 3 2, which is international blitz time controls.

People searching for scientific truth or something, these guys can analyze the hell out of the games afterwards, but for the sporting contest, simply shorten the TC.

Simple solution IMO.

[Marcus9]

Why no one considers to use unbalanced TC instead unbalanced opening?

[Marcus9]

I'd like to see TCEC return to using balanced openings, with perhaps a 6 moves per side limit.

And 96 draws out of 100.

Do you want the best quality chess, or just artificial entertainment?

Best quality chess is agreeing to a draw right after starting the clock (both 32 men tbs). And frankly, I can hardly follow the games of 2600 GMs without a help, I am to "profoundly admire" a 4000 Elo level 96% drawfest? Risible endeavor to me.

You can still learn a lot from draws, and I doubt that they'd mainly be boring.
However, everybody to their own taste.

Some draws can be more exciting that even the most Tal-like wins. The little miniature I posted a couple of weeks ago vs Rofscade was a classic in that mode, both sides with simultaneous attacks resolving with fireworks into highly unbalanced position, OTB very difficult to predict what was going on, or the eventual result. Draws like that are rare but not that rare.
Nevertheless, I partly agree with Laskos, preferring that one side can CREATE unbalance, an imbalance that is then fought over, is preferable to book authors generating the imbalance beforehand.

I agree with Kai as well, but have my own thoughts about this "draw death" issue.

For me, the whole "quest for chess perfection" mentality is all well and good, but one also should make chess a sporting contest as well.

If the sport gets boring, make it more interesting.

The top computers (and even many old ones) already play blitz chess at the same level (or higher) as top GMS do now, so why not just shorten the time controls to rapid or even slow blitz (14+1 or something) ?

And keep shortening until either the draw death ends, or you reach 3 2, which is international blitz time controls.

People searching for scientific truth or something, these guys can analyze the hell out of the games afterwards, but for the sporting contest, simply shorten the TC.

Simple solution IMO.

TCEC is not distinguished by blitz TC.
True, today the best chess engines play in the best games blitz of the best GM in long TC, but an engine with more time can show us how to beat it

[BrendanJNorman]

I'd like to see TCEC return to using balanced openings, with perhaps a 6 moves per side limit.

And 96 draws out of 100.

Do you want the best quality chess, or just artificial entertainment?

Best quality chess is agreeing to a draw right after starting the clock (both 32 men tbs). And frankly, I can hardly follow the games of 2600 GMs without a help, I am to "profoundly admire" a 4000 Elo level 96% drawfest? Risible endeavor to me.

You can still learn a lot from draws, and I doubt that they'd mainly be boring.
However, everybody to their own taste.

Some draws can be more exciting that even the most Tal-like wins. The little miniature I posted a couple of weeks ago vs Rofscade was a classic in that mode, both sides with simultaneous attacks resolving with fireworks into highly unbalanced position, OTB very difficult to predict what was going on, or the eventual result. Draws like that are rare but not that rare.
Nevertheless, I partly agree with Laskos, preferring that one side can CREATE unbalance, an imbalance that is then fought over, is preferable to book authors generating the imbalance beforehand.

I agree with Kai as well, but have my own thoughts about this "draw death" issue.

For me, the whole "quest for chess perfection" mentality is all well and good, but one also should make chess a sporting contest as well.

If the sport gets boring, make it more interesting.

The top computers (and even many old ones) already play blitz chess at the same level (or higher) as top GMS do now, so why not just shorten the time controls to rapid or even slow blitz (14+1 or something) ?

And keep shortening until either the draw death ends, or you reach 3 2, which is international blitz time controls.

People searching for scientific truth or something, these guys can analyze the hell out of the games afterwards, but for the sporting contest, simply shorten the TC.

Simple solution IMO.

TCEC is not distinguished by blitz TC.

Maybe it should be.

True, today the best chess engines play in the best games blitz of the best GM in long TC, but an engine with more time can show us how to beat it

Really?

Please explain how giving an engine more time to think will "show us how to beat it"?

I completely don't follow your reasoning.

My reasoning is as follows:

Shorter time controls will induce mistakes.

Mistakes reveal weaknesses.

Weakness "shows us how to beat it".

How does your reasoning go?